On 15 May 2007, the Madras High Court two-Judge bench consisting of
Justice Jayapal and Justice Sivakumar admitted one writ petition filed by
Hindu Munnani leader Ram Gopalan and two writ petitions filed by former
Union Law Minister and Janata Party president Dr Subramanian Swamy
relating to the current controversial issue of Rama Sethu Bridge.

The Hindu Munnani"s founder-President Rama Gopalan in his petition made a
prayer to the Madras High Court to direct the Government of India to
forbear from "demolishing the Ramar Palam" for the Sethusamudram Shipping
Canal Project (SSCP). In his petition, Rama Gopalan, made it clear that he
was not against the SSCP project. He emphatically asserted: "My only
concern is that under the guise of the project, the Ramar Palam, which is
otherwise known as Adams Bridge, should not, in any way, be damaged or
tampered with or demolished."

Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy in his public interest litigation
petition requested the Madras High Court to restrain the Centre from in
any manner causing damage to the "Rama Sethu" while implementing the
Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP). In another petition, he
prayed for a direction to the Centre to investigate the origin and history
of Rama Sethu / Adam"s Bridge and consequently declare it as a monument of
national importance.

Dr Subramanian Swamy, relying on references in the Valmiki Ramayana and a
NASA study, contended that it had been established that the bridge was not
a natural formation but was a "deliberately constructed bridge by placing
shoal stones in a bridge formation." He denied that "Rama Sethu" was
either imaginary or mythical, and said the Government of India and the
Archaeological Survey of India had not undertaken any official study about
the bridge and its origin.

Dr Subramanian Swamy contended that the Centre and its agencies were bound
by ARTICLE 49 of the Constitution as well as the provisions of the Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 to protect Adam"s
Bridge known as "Rama Sethu", from planned destruction by Union Shipping
Minister T R Baalu. Dr Swamy also added that the decision to proceed with
the project by demolishing the Rama Sethu Bridge is violative of the
provisions of the Constitution and the statute." Maintaining that it was
not his intention to stop the project, Dr Swamy said it should be carried
out without affecting the existing "Rama Sethu." He wanted the court to
restrain the authorities from demolishing or damaging the Rama Sethu
Bridge pending disposal of his writ petition.

I understand from some of my Advocate friends who were present in court
that Dr Subramanian Swamy presented his arguments before the Madras High
Court in a brilliant manner yesterday (15 May, 2007) through his
inimitable means of producing conviction in a Court of Law, I mean through
his plainness, conciseness and accuracy. He had charm. He had charisma. He
was in full control. In isolating the important point that mattered, he
ignored the many that did not. His words and phrases during the course of
his arguments were both memorable and accessible. An instinctive grasp of
language was married to an actor"s timing. Those who were present in court
could see that Dr Swamy was persuasive because of his rejection of all
superfluous and irrelevant matter and because it was known that he
disdained all the mere devices of speech. In presenting his case on the
imperative national need to protect the Rama Sethu Bridge, the most vital
quality of Dr Swamy"s able advocacy lay in his sensitivity to
relevance the instinctive capacity to identify what was central to his
case, to focus on it and in consequence to discard what was peripheral.
Finally he showed that what mattered was the power of analysis; the
ability to master and present a complex web of fact and law with clarity
and maximum persuasion. Dr Swamy thus proved that advocacy is not end in
itself; its end is the action of others

It is understood that during the course of arguments, the Madras High
Court indicated that it may be necessary to appoint an Advocate
-Commission to ascertain the facts related to the existence of Ramar Palam
(Rama Sethu). When Dr Swamy pointed out that there is an imminent danger
to cause damage to the Rama Setu Bridge, through a lightning process of
sudden rock blasting (perhaps with anti-Hindu T R Baalu even resorting to
the use of RDX the suggestive words within brackets here mine!!!), the
court observed that within two weeks, the Government is not expected to
damage the Rama Sethu Bridge, and directed the issuance of notices to
Government of India and posted the case for hearing on 29 May, 2007.

As a true Hindu, Dr Subramanian Swamy is fully aware of the fact that a
non-Hindu like Mrs Ambika Soni, and dangerous Anti-Hindus like T R Baalu
and his "Political Landlord" Karunanidhi are to Rama Setu what Taliban is
to Bamiyan. I am not writing any Indo-Islamic fiction! In March 2001, the
Ministry of Culture in Afghanistan"s Islamist Taliban Government was
leading a holy jehad to destroy the ancient gigantic Buddha relics of
Bamiyan in Afghanistan. On 4 March, 2001, Maulawi Qudratullah Jamal Mrs
Ambika Soni"s Ministerial counterpart in the Taliban Government at that
time officially announced on their Radio Shariyat, the details of a
decision taken by 400 religious clerics from across Afghanistan who had
declared that the Bamiyan Buddha statues were against the tenets of Islam.
Maulawi Qudratullah Jamal, very much like Mrs Ambika Soni and T R Baalu in
regard to their committed destruction of the Rama Setu Bridge in
Rameshwaram, said with arrogant Islamic authority "The Muslim Clerics have
come out with a consensus that the statues are un-Islamic".

Let me now turn to anti-Hindu Maulawi Qudratullah Jamal of Tamilnadu and
India, I mean T R Baalu. On 16 April, 2007, Union Shipping Minister Mr T R
Baalu said that his Ministry had concluded that there is no scientific
proof behind the existence of Rama Sethu. He told newspersons that, "the
studies have not revealed the existence of a man-made structure in the
area". He implied that all the government was after destroying were merely
some rocks, and that the Hindus" beliefs about Setu which make it an
object of worship for them, were hollow and superstitious. Six years
earlier, a Taliban Leader in Afghanistan called Mr Mullah Omar and his
other Taliban colleagues did not even have any compulsions like what Mr
Baalu is having today, of having to claim science for their justification.
Mr Mullah Omar, casually shrugging his shoulders like T R Baalu, gave his
death sentence with a wicked smile to the ancient gigantic Buddha relics
of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in these words: All we are breaking are stones.
These infidel statues are insulting to Islam and should be destroyed so
that they could never be worshipped again by the infidels. These shrines
of infidels should be destroyed forthwith and torn down

Later in 2001, Taliban Foreign Minister Mr Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil indicated
that there was no change in the decision to destroy the statues. He was
speaking after talks with a UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL ENVOY, Pierre LaFrance,
in Kandahar who had pleaded for the continued existence of the exquisitely
carved, beautiful and gigantic Buddhist statues of Bamiyan. Thus those
Buddhist statues were destroyed by the Taliban Government for ever and
ever. The Trio of anti-Hindu Talibans like Mrs Ambika Soni, T R Baalu and
Karunanidhi is desperately trying to destroy the Rama Setu Bridge to
out-Taliban the Talibans of Afghanistan in India today. Of course,
unfortunately for Rama Setu, there is no Pierre LaFrance from UN, because
unlike Bamiyan Buddha relics, which were UNESCO heritage sites, Rama Setu
enjoys no such status- apart from being the holiest of holy pilgrim places
in the hearts of the Hindus.

After giving his brilliant arguments in the Madras High Court yesterday Dr
Subramanian Swamy sent the following letter to T R Baalu, Union Minister
for Shipping, which speaks for itself, proclaiming the timeless Hindu
message of righteousness and not self-righteousness:

Dear Mr Baalu:

This is to inform you that the Vacation Bench of the Madras High Court
admitted my Writ Petition No 18223 & 18224 of 2007 today, and the Union
Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr Wilson who was present took
Notice in the Court itself. The next date fixed is 29 May, 2007.

I am apprising you that during the course of my arguments for admission I
had also argued for a stay order against the SSCP"s attempted demolition
of the Rama Setu.

The Court observed that at the slow pace of work going on, it is not
possible for the project authority to demolish the Setu, and hence I need
not be concerned.

I THEREFORE EXPRESSED TO THE BENCH THE VIEW THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE
COURT IS A DE-FACTO INJUNCTION AGAINST ATTEMPTS BY YOUR GOVERNMENT TO
DEMOLISH THE RAMA SETU TILL THE NEXT HEARING. THIS VIEW OF MINE WAS NOT
CONTESTED OR OPPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL IN COURT.

Hence, I urge you to direct the SSCP authority to ensure that no dredging
or demolition equipment nears the Rama Setu. If that happens then it would
be tantamount to Contempt of Court and a breach of agreement in Court.

Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
(SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY)

Taking note of the above letter of Dr Swamy to T R Balu, I am persuaded to
believe that an informal and clear indication has been given by the Madras
High Court to the effect that no unilateral action should be taken either
by T R Balu or by the Government of India in regard to the already planned
wholesale destruction of the Rama Setu Bridge. All the peace loving and
helpless Hindus of India are very happy that Dr Subramanian Swamy has so
adroitly tried to check mate the Guerilla moves of the treacherous "Talibanistic"
Anti-Hindu Trio of Mrs Ambika Soni, T R Balu and M.Karunanidhi to blast
the Rama Setu Bridge, very much like the American bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki during World War II in 1945, regardless of the disastrous
religious and cultural consequences for millions and millions of Hindus in
India and the World.

Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article (TR Baalu, Dr Subramanian Swamy,
Adam's Bridge) are the author's own and not of this website. The author is
solely responsible for the contents of this article (TR Baalu, Dr
Subramanian Swamy, Adam's Bridge). This website does not represent or
endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any opinion,
statement, appeal, advice or any other information in the article. Our
readers are free to forward this page URL to anyone. This column may NOT
be transmitted or distributed by others in any manner whatsoever (other
than forwarding or web listing page URL) without the prior permission from
us and the author.